|
Arpig -> RE: Bill Maher : most Americans are Dumb and Uneducated - And he is 110% right, as always :) (9/11/2009 2:07:41 AM)
|
quote:
Arpig, So I guess you are simply uneducated about Africa in the 20th century. To even compare it to Latin America in terms of war and violent exploitation is nonsense. And simply reflexsive anti Americanism. I never once compared Latin America to anything, not to Africa, not to Asia, not to the far side of the moon. You are the only one who mentioned Africa. All I did was point out that the Monroe Doctrine did nothing to keep the peace in Latin America. To claim otherwise is simply foolish.
Since the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine there have been over 50 wars, revolutions and major insurgencies in Latin America: 1822-23: Overthrow of the 1st Mexican Empire; 1825-28: Argentina-Brazil War; 1828-29: Gran Colombia War between Peru and Gran Colombia; 1834: Yucatan Rebellion in Mexico; 1835-36: Texas War of Independence; 1835-45: War of the Farrapos between Brazil and the Piratini Republic; 1838-40: Civil war in the Federal Republic of Central America; 1838-41: Balaiada revolt in Brazil; 1839-40: War between Republic of Yucatan & Republic of Chiapas; 1839-51 Uruguayan Civil War; 1840s & 50s: Civil wars in Nicaragua; 1840-41: Panamanian-Colombian civil war; 1840-42: Independence and subjugation of the Second Republic of Yucatan in Mexico; 1841: Tabasco revolt in Mexico; 1842-44: Mexican war with Texas; 1846-47: Yucatan Civil War; 1846-48: Mexican-American War; 1847-1915: Caste War in Yucatan, Mexico; 1851-52: Platine War between Argentina and Brazil/Uruguay; 1856: Costa Rica vs. Nicaragua (under American adventurer William Walker); 1857-61: War of Reform a civil war in Mexico; 1858-60: 1st Ecuadorian-Peruvian War; 1861-83: Occupation of Araucania attack by Chile on the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia; 1862-67: French invasion of Mexico & 2nd Mexican Empire; 1864-66: Chincha Islands War between Spain and Peru & Chile; 1864-70: War of the Triple Alliance between Paraguay and Argentina, Brazil & Uruguay; 1870-72: Revolution of the Lances in Uruguay; 1875-84: Conquest of the Desert between Argentina and the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia; 1879-84: War of the Pacific between Chile and Bolivia & Peru; 1893-97: War of the Canudos in Northern Brazil; 1898: Spanish-American War; 1899-1902: Thousand Day War in Colombia; 1903: Panamanian Revolution; 1903-04: Border incidents between Ecuador & Peru; 1904: Saravia uprising in Uruguay; 1906: Guatemalan invasion of Honduras; 1910-21: Mexican Revolution; 1912-16: Contesado War in Brazil; 1926-29: Cristero War in Mexico; 1927-33: Guerrilla war by Sandino in Nicaragua; 1932-33: Columbia-Peru War; 1932-35: Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay; 1941-42: 2nd Ecuadorian-Peruvian War; 1948: Costa Rican Civil War; 1948-58: La Violenca in Columbia; 1958: Football War between El Salvador and Honduras; 1950-96: Guatemalan Civil War; 1953-59: Cuban Revolution; 1959-65: The Escambray rebellion/War Against the Bandits in Cuba; 1966-Present: FARC insurgency in Colombia; 1967: Che's rebellion in Bolivia; 1972-79: Sandinista insurrection in Nicaragua; 1975-83: Operation Condor a US backed campaign in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador & Peru to suppress leftist opposition; 1976-83: The Dirty War in Argentina; 1979-88: Contra revolution in Nicaragua (actively aided by US 1982-88); 1980-1992: Salvadoran Civil War; 1980-Present: Shining Path insurgency in Peru; 1981: Paquisha War between Ecuador and Peru; 1982 Falklands War between the UK and Argentina; 1995: Cenapa War Between Ecuador and Peru.
Some of these conflicts were devastating, for example in the War of the Triple Alliance roughly 370,000 were killed. Paraguay was devastated nearly 60% of its population and upto90% of its male population. Of its postwar population of 220,000, down from a prewar level of 525,000, only 28,000 were male. The civil war in Colombia known as La Violenca killed over 200,000.
As well, the US has intervened militarily to one degree or another throughout Latin America, specifically: Argentina (1833, 1852-53 & 1890); Brazil (1894); Chile (1891); Colombia (1850, 1858, 1872, 1895, 1901 & twice in 1902); Cuba (1906-09, 1912, 1917-22, 1933 & 1962); Dominican Republic (1903, 1904, 1914, 1915-24 & 1964); El Salvador (1981); Falkland Islands (1831-32); Grenada (1983); Guatemala (1920); Haiti (1888, 1891, 1914, 1994 & 2004); Honduras (1903, 1907, 1912, 1919, twice in 1924 & 1983-89); Mexico (1836, 1842. 1844, 1859, 1870, 1873-96, 1876, 1913, 1914-17 & 1918-19); Nicaragua (1853, 1855, 1867, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1899, 1910, 1911, 1912-25 & 1925-33); Panama (1865), 1885, 1903-13, 1904, 1912, 1918-20, 1921, 1925, 1988, 1989 & 198-90); Paraguay (1859); Peru (1835-36); Uruguay (1858 & 1868).
European powers have also intervened several times since the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine: The re-establishment of British rule in the Falklands in 1833; a French blockade of Argentina in 1848; an Anglo-French blockade and bombardment of Argentina in 1845.
In the last century the US staged or backed military coups in at least 10 Latin American countries installing repressive “caudillo” regimes: Argentina (1976); Bolivia (1971 &1980); Brazil (1964); Chile (1973); Guatemala (1954); Honduras (1933 & 1972); Nicaragua (1909 & 1934); Panama (1968 & 1983); Paraguay (1954); Uruguay
(1973).
So as you can see Latin America has been anything but peaceful, in fact its history is turbulent and filled with violence. And its clear that the US has played its part in the violence. If you see it as "reflexive anti-Americanism" to point out the facts, then so be it, I really don't give two fucks if you consider me anti-American. I know you are wrong on both counts so your opinion means nothing to me.
quote:
Your entire argument is based on Somosa did so and so in the 1940s so that makes it ok for Chavez to violently and illegally silence his domestic opposition. I don't buy it. Not even slightly my argument. You asked for one specific example of how the US and its clients did any of the things that Chavez has done, and I provided you with one. As I have repeatedly stated in what I thought was plain English, I do not condone, excuse, defend or support what Chavez has done. But for some reason you keep insisting that I do, perhaps if I were to say it in French you would get it...its worth a try: Je ne pardonne pas, ni excuse, ni défends, ni soutiens ce qui a fait Chavez.
quote:
Sorry you are confused by the concept of viewing Historical events in Context. You have no problem excusing (which is what you are doing despite your denial) Chavez, by pointing out events a thousand of miles away and 50 years ago (an execution in Nicaragua). You fully accept that, Sandino's execution justifies Chavez's actions. I don't see the conection, at all. And you continue to refuse to explain it. I do understand the argument you are refusing to actually write down. It is " America sucks, so any Violation of Human Rights in the Fight against America is excused". Another way of putting it is "Chavez hates Bush so he's an ok guy". Yet you seem completely oblivious to the context of virtually all of the events you are citing, The Cold War. Stopping the USSR from setting up shop in our Hemisphere.. OK, I have already dealt with the Sandino/Somoza issue, but here we go again.I never said that it excused Chavez's actions. There is no argument I am refusing to write down,it is entirely of your own making...it exists only in your mind. I have repeatedly explained that all I was doing was pointing out that by Latin American standards (and the standards of US policy in Latin America) Chavez isn't the devil incarnate...he is bad, but not that bad. And the context of the Cold War makes no difference either, it doesn't change the fact that the US actively and repeatedly promoted the same tactics that Chavez is using. You seem to think that such things are fine as long as the victims are leftists, but when the perpetrator is a leftist it is deplorable. My point is that it is wrong regardless of who is doing it. Left/right makes no difference.
quote:
The reality is that in the War in Angola, more people were killed than in all of Latin America, in the entire cold war. It is ignorance on your part, that you do not know how violent the colonial exploitations of Africa in the early 20th century were (which Latin America missed because of the Monreo Doctrine) You apperantly have no idea of the body count in Algeria for example. Comapred to Africa, Latin America has been a rather peacefull place. The USSR trying to move in in the mid to later 20th cent, got semi violent, but again, compare it to Africa, not even close.
Again you bring up Africa. It has nothing to do with ignorance on my part, I am not discussing Africa. The level of violence in Africa has nothing to do with the discussion. It has nothing to do with Chavez or with US policy and actions in Latin America. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and I fail to see why you keep bringing it up...its irrelevant and I won't be sidetracked by it. As to Latin America being a rather peaceful place since the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine, well I think my lists above put the lie to that claim...it just isn't so. You want to restrict the discussion to the Cold War period, but that is artificial, it is erroneous to consider Latin American history and the effect of US policy on it during that period in isolation...there is no real change in US policy from the turn of the century till the late 80s. In fact ever since the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine, the US has bullied Latin America regularly...and you wonder why los Yanquis are not beloved down there.
You claim that the Monroe Doctrine prevented European intervention in Latin America, but the Soviets managed to establish clients in Cuba, and for a while in Nicaragua (until the Sandanistas were defeated in an election by Chomorro...not militarily by the Contras. Yes, Communist insurrections in other countries have been put down by the ruling juntas, put down to the accompaniment of wide spread human rights abuses, murders, disappearances, and censorship. In Colombia and Peru the Communists are still active (though they are on the run in Peru). But you can't really claim that it prevented any major attempt at intervention by the European powers...there was no such attempts (other than the one you mentioned by the French into Mexico) and to assume that there would have been in the absence of the Monroe Doctrine is baseless...you have no proof of any such thing,it is all in the realm of what-ifs. What there is proof of is that Latin America has been wracked by wars, revolutions, coups and that in the 20th century the worst human rights abusers in Latin America have been US clients...dictators installed with US help and backing. If recognizing that fact makes me anti-American, oh well.
When I think about it as a Canadian I have plenty of reason to distrust the US, after all the only country to ever attack Canada is the US, which they did while they figured Britain was too occupied by Napoleon to do anything about it (much like the French in Mexico), however the US lost that war, despite Britain being engaged in a massive struggle with France. So I guess if I am anti-American I come by it honestly.[:D]
|
|
|
|
